> Felado : [Canada]>> Much to everyone's relief! And cockroaches will outlive all other lifeforms> even after a nuclear war or accident.
Cocroaches require quite a complex environment with lots of organic material,
so it's not clear they could outlast all other lifeforms.
> What you're saying is that capitalism can't really function if it is bogged> down by 'stupid oppressive regimes', latifundia, tribalism, precapitalist> systems, ethnic conflicts, and what have you.
No. Places like Central America don't have capitalism.
> In essence, your argument is> very simmilar to Eva's except she says that socialism/communism didn't work> because there was never any 'democratic socialism'. Are you both right?
Well there seems to be a slight difference: I can point to a fair number
of examples that do have a working capitalst system, even reasonably
successful ones, whereas E1va can't point to a single successful example.
So we always end up comparing the ugly reality to beautiful utopias.
> >>The wellspring of your economic fundamentalist ideology is, no doubt,> >>Friedrich August von Hayek's, 1944 text, The Road to Serfdom. Hayek> >>believed that increased government control would lead both to economic> >>decline, as state planning replaced the free market, and to the erosion> >>of personal liberty.> >Hayek indeed "believed" this, though I think this choice of the verb> >does disservice to "belief" arrived at by logical argumentation. I'd> >say Hayek "reasoned", "argued", even "concluded" this, and boy did the> >ensuing period prove him right.>> So his little book is like a catechism? Reasoning and arguing is fine, but> what does that have to do with the scientific understanding of the economy?
Let me get this straight. As readers of the preceding paragraph can see, it
was _you_ expressing the view that Hayek's work is religion, and _me_
expressing the opposite view. This being the case, your use of the particle
'So' is inappropriate, since you are (re)introducing a view that I just
criticized, rather than agreeing to what I said. At any rate, Hayek is not
catechism, nor did I ever suggest that it was. Read the stuff, and decide for
yourself whether the arguments are convincing. Better yet, provide some
substantive counterarguments, based on a better scientific understanding of
the economy.
> And was it increased government control that led to the decay of American> inner cities, high unemployment, environmental degredation, and the decline> of the hinterland?
There are lots of people (certainly enough to have elected a Republican
congress) who believe so. I personally think that the decay of American
inner cities is due to two factors: cheap gasoline and the mortgage interest
deduction. These two are the enabling factors of the suburban/metroplex
settlement pattern, which directly leads to the erosion of the city tax
base, which in turn leads to decay, which in turn leads to white flight,
which in turn leads to further erosion of the tax base, and so on...
High unemployment is due primarily to a too long work week. Environmental
degradation is due primarily to a substantially increased population. As
for the decline of the hinterland, I'm not sure what you mean -- do you
mean the decay of the rust belt?
> Oh please! Such bravado!! You'll soon be asking us to join the citizens> militias that seem to be so popular in the States these days. Governments> work only to the extent that people allow.
Governments work substantially _less_ than the extent people would allow. The
sentiment that there is too much government, so popular in the States these
days, is rooted in this simple fact.
> Oh, I don't know Andras. You're 'capitalist realism' is not very appealing.
Perhaps not, but at least it's realism, which seems to me a distinct
advantage compared to the utopias you and E1va still cling to.
> You seem to be content knowing that people in Hungary will now have to work> harder and with no job security.
Content? I'm delighted they work harder on more productive things.
> And people will have to do this to make the 'boss' richer.
No, people have to do it to make themselves richer. All the 'boss' has
to do is to hire people who are interested in such an undertaking.
> I bet you never argued for people to work harder to make 'society' richer.
Society's richness is the sum of its members' richness. Because of this
obvious truth, no special provision is needed to make society richer: make
the individuals richer and things will work out for society as a whole.
> As for drugs, they may give one a false sense of well-being. But in my> books, a false sense of well-being is better than no sense of well-being.
Many would disagree rather strongly, but I'm not so sure, maybe you are right.
Either way, if one can sustain it there is nothing false about it. The
problem seems to be sustaining it.
Andra1s Kornai

Joe Szalai writes:
"And was it increased government control that led to the decay of American
inner cities, high unemployment, environmental degredation, and the decline
of the hinterland?"
There are many, who claim that this decay was caused by the paternalistic
welfare state that essentially got large numbers (generations) of recipients
hooked on welfare.
"Governments work only to the extent that people allow."
Except when there is no democracy and some dictatorial form of government
imposes its will upon the people (not so unusual in the past few thousand
years).
" You're 'capitalist realism' is not very appealing. You seem to be content
knowing that people in Hungary will now have to work harder and with no job
security.
This was the job security where "they pretended they were paying us and we
pretended we were working".
"And people will have to do this to make the 'boss' richer".
In most cases the "boss" is the shareholder. Look at ADM, their largest
shareholder is the California State Employee's Pension Plan. This plan is
pressuring ADM to improve the share price. How do you think they will do it?
By improving efficiency.
"I don't know the current situation in Hungary, but in Canada, many people
are now working at two jobs just to make ends meet. "
One of the reasons for this the excessive taxation the Canadian government
imposes on its people.
Farkas D. Gabor

Joe Szalai writes:
"A sampling of opinions expressed here and on other newsgroups indicate that
many Hungarians are sexist, racist (especially toward gypsies), and homophobic.
Are Hungarians ready to join the European Community?"
A few lines above he writes about Canadians:
"And a lot of them are very angry. They've concluded that liberalism,
socialism or social democracy is not the solution and they are drawn towards
narrow, fascist ideologies and religion, or a combination of the two."
Should we conclude then, that Canada is to be excluded from all
international organizations? After all "a lot of them" sounds much larger
than "a sampling of opinions ..on..newsgroups".
Farkas D. Gabor

Jeliko and Eva Balogh,
I have no difficulty with old maps used for historical, ethnographic, or
educational purposes. If having historic maps of Hungary proved that the
owner of those maps was an irredentist, then I would be one.
Joe Szalai

At 04:35 PM 2/10/96 -0500, Paul Gelencser wrote:
>>A sampling of opinions expressed here and on other newsgroups indicate>>that many Hungarians are sexist, racist (especially toward gypsies), and>>homophobic.>>By your definition, not by mine or many others'.>>Paul Gelencser
Then I suggest you look up the definitions in a good dictionary. But before
you do that, give us your definitions and I'll cross reference them.
Joe Szalai

At 07:30 PM 2/10/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:
> Well, Paul, as you know, I don't agree with Joe Szalai on political>questions but, by golly, he is right about the sexism, racism, and>homophobia. I know you don't like to hear that but that's the truth.
Well, Eva, even historians should know that sexism, racism, and homophobia
are political questions. You and I agree on questions of equality as it
relates to gender, race, and sexual orientation. You and I disagree on
economic fairness, which, of course, is also a political question.
Joe Szalai

At 05:04 11/02/96 -0800, Farkas Gabor wrote:
>Joe Szalai writes:>"And was it increased government control that led to the decay of American>inner cities, high unemployment, environmental degredation, and the decline>of the hinterland?">>There are many, who claim that this decay was caused by the paternalistic>welfare state that essentially got large numbers (generations) of recipients>hooked on welfare.
You are referring to the fact that the welfare system has actually helped to
create the new American underclass, by discouraging, among other things,
traditional marriage and the idea of two-parent families, because, in order
to get Aid to Dependent Children, the father in most cases must be out of
the home. Andras's factors of cheap gas and the mortgage interest tax
deduction may also have a tangential impact on the decay of the cities.
Another element in Andras's equation might also be the fact that the cities
traditionally had higher rates of taxation to support a greater number of
services provided to their residents. Thus, housing in the suburbs was more
affordable, and, of course, city dwellers also looked for the relatively
wide open spaces in the suburbs. I believe all these are legitimate factors
to be taken into account in considering the decline of American cities. But
in any case, very little of that is the direct fault of capitalism. A great
deal of it is the fault of misguided, muddled bureaucrats and politicians,
who are trying to do social engineering through the Tax Code other
government legislation and persist in the belief that they know how to
spend your money better than you do.
>>"Governments work only to the extent that people allow.">>Except when there is no democracy and some dictatorial form of government>imposes its will upon the people (not so unusual in the past few thousand>years).
See comments above.
>>" You're 'capitalist realism' is not very appealing. You seem to be content>knowing that people in Hungary will now have to work harder and with no job>security.>>This was the job security where "they pretended they were paying us and we>pretended we were working".
This was formerly very much the same in Canada. The system worked great,
except that the government kept rolling up huger and huger deficits.
Everybody likes the system of social services, because, as Eva B. said in
regards to Hungary, everybody feels those services are "free," they don't
realize the true cost, so they take advantage of the system. The cuts in
government services were begun by the Conservatives in the federal and
provincial (here in Nova Scotia) governments, but they have been continued
by the Liberals, both federally and provincially. The Canadians are going
through *exactly* the same process that the Hungarians are going through,
although probably on a reduced scale, because, as James Doepp said, in
effect they are coming down from a high, which was the artificial
maintenance of a high standard of living. In Canada, this was largely based
on borrowing from the future, in the form of running up large deficits.
What is frustrating here, and I imagine in Hungary as well, is that the tax
burdens have stayed as high if not higher than before, at the same time that
services are being cut.
>>"And people will have to do this to make the 'boss' richer".
This reminds me of James Doepp's comment that sometimes profit cannot be
measured in money, and JoeG. challenged him to explain how that could be.
Well, maybe, I have an example. I am an employer, with one employee, a
full-time secretary. Now that I am operating my own computer, especially, I
sometimes question whether I need a secretary at all, in the sense that my
business might be more profitable if I was not paying her. However, there is
an intangible benefit to me (to my mental well-being, if you will) knowing
that I can be away from my office and my clients will still be able to deal
with a real live person. There is a benefit to my clients that there is
virtually always someone at my office during regular working hours, which I
think enhances my reputation in the community. And I feel there is a benefit
to her, in the sense that I have sacrificed, sometimes borrowed money on my
credit card, in order to keep her working full time and paid on schedule -
in other words, I am doing as much as I can to give her job security. I feel
this "profits" me in the sense of intangible satisfaction with my profession
and my life. James D. has alluded to this, but Joe G. seems to refuse to
believe that any sense of morality is consistent with the market. The market
may be impersonal, but that is because it is only a tool, it is not an end
in itself, unlike what Joe G. believes.
By the way, something I am a firm believer in, and which has not been
touched on by any commentator so far, is that I believe one reason that
practically all societies seem to be in decline is that they are really set
up on a scale which is far too large for human comprehension. That was one
reason I appreciated settling in Canada. The whole country had about 24
million people in a larger territory than the U.S., and there were only 2600
people in the town where I live. I had never lived in a small town before I
came here, but I found that a lot of the little niceties of human behavior
mean more when you know the people you are dealing with every day.
(Unfortunately, it is a little harder for people to maintain all those
little niceties when the economy is going down the toilet, thanks to
government cutbacks and the decline in the fishery, which I might add is at
least partly due to the government claiming its scientists in Ottawa knew
enough about what was happening to the fishery to determine what the
fishermen should be allowed to catch, and then finding out - too late - that
they were wrong.)
>>"I don't know the current situation in Hungary, but in Canada, many people>are now working at two jobs just to make ends meet. ">>One of the reasons for this the excessive taxation the Canadian government>imposes on its people.
Yes, yes, yes!
>Farkas D. Gabor>
Yours,
Johanne
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail -

I have not seen you post to this newsgroup before. If you're new, welcome.
If you have, as your two posts seem to indicate, a neo-con, Hayekist
political/economic world view, you'll be in good company on this group. Not
my company, mind you, but company all the same.
Joe Szalai

At 04:06 PM 2/10/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:
>And I will be even harsher than Andras was in his original piece. I contend>that most Hungarians misuse, abuse, take advantage of (take your pick) the>social services provided. Currently, the Hungarian people pay 65-70 percent>of their wages for social services, but somehow they don't seem to realize>the connection between the "free" social services and their own>contribution to them. Because they come from the state, they are>free--manna from heaven!! And as such you can abuse it.
Eva, by all means be critical of people who abuse social services. But do
you really favour doing away with them because they are abused? It seems
that today, with the winds of reaction blowing strong, many people favour a
leaner, meaner society. We are paying for the abuse of social services
today but we'll be paying for a leaner, meaner society tomorrow.
I'll give a local example that I'm familiar with.
Last year, Ontarians elected a 'Hayekist' conservative government that
promised to reduce big government and the deficit. One of their main
targets were people on welfare and welfare cheats. They hit a raw nerve
with the voters and they got a large majority in the legislature.
One of the first acts of the new government was to reduce welfare benefits
by 21%. Sure, there are/were cheats on welfare but everyone's benifits were
reduced. Nobody seemed to care or notice that 50% of the people on welfare
were children. Hungry or malnourished children do not learn well in school.
They will be ill prepared for future jobs and may end up being unhealthy.
That will cost the next generation. Unless, of course, they'll be willing
to just let these people rot and die by the wayside. Maybe we can solve
their future problems by reestablishing the eugenics programmes of the
recent past.
To be opposed to social programmes because of abuse is a bit like being
opposed to marriage because there is sexism and inequality in many
relationships. To be opposed to social programmes because of abuse is to
declare that the abuser has won, that society is unwilling or incapable of
nabbing the abusers.
You may have given into the abusers, Eva. I have not!
Joe Szalai

At 03:38 AM 2/11/96 -0500, Andras Kornai wrote:
>No. Places like Central America don't have capitalism.
If you can say that, then why can't Eva Durant say that Eastern Europe
didn't have true democratic socialism?
>I can point to a fair number>of examples that do have a working capitalst system, even reasonably>successful ones, whereas E1va can't point to a single successful example.
It's hard to point to something that dosen't/didn't exist. As you well
know, I have no use for religion but a lot of people can't seem to live
without it. Should I tell the belivers not to believe because the world
isn't the way it should be, according to the bible, koran, torah, etc..
>So we always end up comparing the ugly reality to beautiful utopias.
Yes. That is humankinds curse or perhaps a vital part of the evolutionary
process.
>Better yet, provide some substantive counterarguments, based on a better>scientific understanding of the economy.
I don't think that would help. There are many ways of looking at the
economy. It all depends on what you want out of it. Have you ever seen a
group of economists agree on anything? Math is a science. Economics is not.
>Governments work substantially _less_ than the extent people would allow.>The sentiment that there is too much government, so popular in the States>these days, is rooted in this simple fact.
Less is too much? This sounds like the introduction to an infomercial.
>Perhaps not, but at least it's realism, which seems to me a distinct>advantage compared to the utopias you and E1va still cling to.
You have no advantage over Eva or me. What you call realism is nothing more
than your desire to keep your eyes closed. Also, I don't know why you
insist that a fair, shared, more or less equal world, is a utopia. Maybe
it's your Hungarian pessimism that instructs you that this is a rough and
cruel world and nothing that you do will ever make it any better, so it's
best to take care of number one. With that attitude, you will succeed. But
you'll die a pessimist.
>Society's richness is the sum of its members' richness. Because of this>obvious truth, no special provision is needed to make society richer: make>the individuals richer and things will work out for society as a whole.
Andras, you haven't been reading Karl Marx lately, have you? Your last
comment makes you sound like a closet Marxist.
Joe Szalai

Bruce Rieves-Dienes wrote:
> I'm something of a novice to Central and Eastern European market economy => [r]evolution stuff - but am fascinated by it nonetheless.>> Can anyone direct me towards some background reading on the subject, => either on List Hungary or elsewhere? Facts first, opinions second!
If you can handle dry analytical stuff, read the numerous OECD reports on
the economies of transition. They are perhaps the best, and more
freely available than World Bank or IMF reports. Especially if you have
access to a university library, the librarians should be able to locate and
obtain the publications for you.
There are also zillions of books by now, many with a broader scope than just
the economy, so that you can read up on the important social consequences
of socio-economic transition. A browse through library catalogues should
throw up plenty, but sorting the grain from the chaff is difficult. As I
tend to rely on news reports and friends/family I cannot help you with
titles.
> This is probably extremely naive, but I've always thought that Hungary => (probably more than the other Central European nations) is in a unique => position to develop a new way forward - taking the best from socialism => and free markets, if that's possible, and developing a 90's => socio-economic regime which is an improvement on both the drawbacks of => socialism and of purist capitalism.
A few years ago there were huge debates about the feasibility of a 'third
road' of development for transition countries, something that would take them
between the Scylla of communism and the Charybdis of capitalism straight to
Nirvana. By now, there is a consensus that there is no third road, although
there will be a very predictable reaction to this statement from two people
in this discussion group.
> The trick must be to take a long term view. This requires some degree => of managed intervention. Short-termism - it seems to me - will always => result in greed pushing the system away from ideal equilibrium.
Greed is, of course, a powerful motivation. As long as society can curtail
the excesses of it, self interest has a better proven track record in driving
an economic system than expecting everybody to be unselfish and act only in
the common interest.
You are absolutely right about the need for long-term perspectives and that
this requires some intervention. How much intervention, though, is the crux
of the issue. Too little and there is a dog-eat-dog situation, too much
intervention and we have a dictatorship that can end up in serving self
interests as much as a free-for-all. But this issue has been danced about
much by great thinkers and their thoughts fill libraries.
In all, we can only fall back to the maxim that while parliamentary democracy
is clearly not a perfect system there is none better.
George Antony

E.Balogh wrote:
>Are you kidding? You should have a sampling of what Hungarians think
^^^^^^^^^^
>of homosexuality at the Forum. You will be surprised. Or perhaps not!
As I remember you was involved in that debate about homosexuality at
the Forum and also 'Voros' (Haraszti) Miklos . You may consider yourself as
Canadian (or American) but Miklos is Hungarian although he likes to refer
himself as 'hibrid'. Joe is obviously more experienced in generalization,
because he wrote:
>many Hungarians are sexist, racist (especially toward gypsies), and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, Eva do not score 'ongol'-s.
Janos

At 05:58 PM 2/11/96 -0500, Janos Zsargo wrote:
>E.Balogh wrote:>>>Are you kidding? You should have a sampling of what Hungarians think> ^^^^^^^^^^>>of homosexuality at the Forum. You will be surprised. Or perhaps not!>>As I remember you was involved in that debate about homosexuality at>the Forum and also 'Voros' (Haraszti) Miklos . You may consider yourself as>Canadian (or American) but Miklos is Hungarian although he likes to refer>himself as 'hibrid'. Joe is obviously more experienced in generalization,>because he wrote:>>>many Hungarians are sexist, racist (especially toward gypsies), and> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>>So, Eva do not score 'ongol'-s.>>Janos
Well, Janos, I didn't think that you would ever subscribe to PC
(politically correct). Gosh--I forgot to put "some," or "many" in front of
Hungarians and here I am in trouble! OK. Let's be more precise--let's be
more precise than Joe Szalai. "Many more Hungarians (as far as percentages
go) are homophobic, generally ignorant concerning homosexuality, feel no
shame to use expressions which we, at least the educated strata on this
continent, wouldn't use." Or, that is my impression! We--again I am talking
about the educated strata to which the subscribers of Forum in Hungary also
belong in their own country--have some idea about homosexuality in general
terms, as opposed to a bunch of ignorant rednecks (sorry, here is the
expression again!) who kept telling me and Miklos Voros (Haraszti) that
homosexuality is a matter of choice! Both Miklos and I desperately tried to
explain that it wasn't but to no avail.
It is a well known fact that homosexuals have a very hard time in
Eastern Europe and in the countries of the former Soviet Union. If I recall
correctly homosexual activity between consenting adults is a punishable
offense in Romania, for example. I also read an article (I think it was in
the New York Times magazine section) about the plight of homosexuals in
Russia--if I recall they managed to create an association named after
Tchaikovsky but they were afraid for their lives. And there is a small brave
group in Hungary, but, if I recall properly, one judge forbid to use the
word "meleg" ("warm" equivalent of "gay") in the name of either the
association or its newspaper. Now, another judge ruled differently. (I don't
know anything about Roman/Hungarian-Roman law, but I am always amused that
one judge can rule this way and another that way--there seems to be no such
thing as precedence!). In any case, this particular newspaper is published
only in three thousand copies. What do think--are they only 3,000
homosexuals in Hungary. What about 30,000? Perhaps more?
People, who talk about homosexuals the way our honored friends did
on the Forum, have never met one. Or to be more precise, they THINK that
they have never met one! Because if they did, I can't imagine that they
would speak the way they do. I have met many and I have many, many friends
among gay men and women and I think very highly of them. Most of them have
been lovely people and unfortunately, I lost many of my former students to
AIDS and my heart goes out for them! And I hate to hear people talk the way
people talked on the Forum a year ago!
That's all, Janos!
Eva (Balogh)
P.S. And one more thing. I had no idea that Miklos Voros is actually the
famous Miklos Haraszti. But if he is--and we privately exchanged many
letters--I am proud of him and I like him enormously. There hasn't been one
topic yet on which he and I wouldn't have agreed. If Miklos calls himself a
hybrid--well, I have spent two-thirds of my life outside of Hungary and I
guess I no longer can think the way "most Hungarians" think on the Forum.

Eva Balogh wrote:
>Well, Janos, I didn't think that you would ever subscribe to PC>(politically correct). Gosh--I forgot to put "some," or "many" in front of
I am sorry, but 'ezt a helyzetet nem lehetett kihagyni'. (I do not know how
to say in English) :-))
As far as the talk about gays on Forum concerned, I still remember your and
Miklos' opinion. I was following the whole debate.
>P.S. And one more thing. I had no idea that Miklos Voros is actually the>famous Miklos Haraszti.
Well, I am not sure if he is 'Haraszti', but he had some comment on Forum
which implies it.
Janos

At 05:58 PM 2/11/96 -0500, Janos Zsargo wrote:
>Joe is obviously more experienced in generalization, because he wrote:>>>many Hungarians are sexist, racist (especially toward gypsies), and> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I may be experienced in generalizations but you're experienced in the lowest
form of popular culture -- the propagation of misinformation!
What I wrote, Janos, was:
>>A sampling of opinions expressed here and on other newsgroups indicate>>that many Hungarians are sexist, racist (especially toward gypsies), and>>homophobic.
I was refering to this newsgroup, Forum, and soc.culture.magyar. I use the
word 'many' to mean less than half. Now, how many writers on the three
groups are sexist, racist, and homophopic? Twenty? Perhaps less? Maybe a
few more?
The line that you quote could be interpretated to mean five million people,
for god's sake! Am I ever glad that you never agree with me.
I have a suggestion for you, Janos. Take some muscle relaxant to keep your
knees from jerking!!
Joe Szalai